Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202343869)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343869

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

28 November 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handing of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise from a neighbour.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord with the shared ownership lease beginning in April 2008. The property is a flat located on the 4th floor. The resident reported late night noise to the landlord from neighbours in a next-door property. For the purpose of this report, they will be referred to as ‘the neighbour’.
  2. The neighbour’s property is also a leasehold flat which was being sublet. The leaseholder of the neighbouring flat will be referred to as ‘the leaseholder’.
  3. The resident first reported noise nuisance in relation to late night noise of slamming doors and extractor fan noise on 17 April 2023. The landlord left messages for the resident on 25 and 26 April 2023 but no further details were provided as to the content of the messages. On 25 May 2023, following a discussion with the landlord, the resident requested to cancel the noise case.
  4. On 5 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again regarding the noise from the neighbour. Between June and July 2023, the landlord took the following action:
    1. Emailed the leaseholder via the available email address in regard to the noise reports. The landlord’s case notes said there was no telephone number recorded.
    2. Contacted an internal department to obtain any additional contact details for the leaseholder. However, no details were available.
    3. Sent a warning letter to the neighbour on 6 June 2023 in relation to the noise reports it received. It has also been evidenced that it made contact with the managing agent responsible for renting the neighbour’s property.
    4. Prepared an action plan on 5 July 2023 following further noise reports from the resident on 15 and 16 June and 5 July 2023. This included actions for:
      1. The landlord to make contact with the neighbour.
      2. The landlord to contact the leasehold team.
      3. The resident to contact the local council’s noise service.
      4. The resident to keep a diary for 7-10 days and download the noise app.
  5. On 24 July 2023, the resident reported noise from an extractor fan and “really loud talking”. She then raised a complaint on 29 July 2023. She said that the extractor fan would go on after midnight, “sometimes for hours”, and the constant banging of doors made it “impossible” to sleep. The resident went on to say that she had not “slept properly for 4 months and nothing has been done”.
  6. On 3 August 2023, the landlord carried out a risk assessment of the ASB case and it was given a standard priority. The risk score was 17 based on the scoring system of 16-24 being medium risk. The landlord also carried out a telephone interview with the resident in relation to the noise reports. The next day it contacted its leaseholder team to obtain details of the leaseholder, and sent a second warning letter to the neighbour in relation to the noise reports.
  7. On 6 August 2023, the resident provided the landlord with recordings of noise that occurred at midnight and 1.30am.
  8. On 16 August 2023, the landlord carried out a case review with the resident. The case notes say that the resident explained that the “noise was the same” and that she had been unable to download the noise app. She had also been keeping a diary and would do so for the rest of that week. The case notes show that the landlord explained to the resident the action it had taken.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 August 2023. It outlined the action it had taken and awarded the resident £50 for her time and trouble. It said that this was in recognition of how long it was taking to establish who was responsible for the flat in question, as well as the impact the noise and the constant banging had had on the resident’s sleep.
  10. On 25 August 2023, the resident provided the landlord with a diary of events from 12 August to 20 August 2023. The landlord carried out 2 further case reviews with the resident on 7 September and 18 October 2023. It said it would be making contact with the managing agent that let the neighbour’s property.
  11. On 2 November 2023, the resident provided the landlord with further recordings of the noise she said she was experiencing. On 6 and 7 November 2023 the landlord liaised with the managing agent requesting details of the leaseholder. It said that if the issue was not resolved it would be taking legal action.
  12. On 18 December 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for an update. She said that it had not contacted the leaseholder in 9 months since her complaint and she was having to sleep in the lounge due to the late night noise. The resident then requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 3 January 2024. She said that the noise was occurring “every single night until 4am”.
  13. On 25 January 2024, the resident advised the noise was still ongoing. The landlord carried out a case review with the resident on 1 February 2024. It said that it was unable to open the mp3 files the resident had sent. On 2 February 2024, the landlord sent a warning letter to the leaseholder next of kin. This was followed up by an email on 6 February 2024, in which the landlord said it would refer the matter to its legal team if the noise issue was not addressed.
  14. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 21 February 2024. It outlined the action it had taken. It acknowledged that it had previously been in regular contact with the resident, “however there was a gap in contact between October 2023 and January 2024.” The landlord went on to apologise for this and offered the resident £200 compensation. It broke this down into:
    1. £75 for failing to provide the resident with fortnightly updates.
    2. £75 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
    3. £50 for the delays in responding to the complaint at stages 1 and 2.
  15. Between March and June 2024, the following action was taken:
    1. Following contact from the resident, the landlord provided a further response at stage 2.
    2. Internal enquiries were made by the landlord which ascertained that permission had been granted for the neighbour’s property to be sublet.
    3. A joint visit was carried out by the landlord and the managing agent to the neighbour.
  16. During recent contact with this Service, the resident explained that she had moved out of the property between January and June 2024 due to the noise she was experiencing. She said the noise is still ongoing.

Assessment and findings 

Scope of the investigation

  1. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions have had on her health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman understands that the resident suffers from anxiety and has concerns about the quality of the water in the property and the potential impact it has had on her family. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
  2. This Service acknowledges that this is a difficult situation for the resident and recognises that the issues reported to the landlord have caused her significant distress. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB, and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB; therefore, our investigation will consider the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise from a neighbour

  1. It has been evidenced that the resident first reported noise from the neighbour in April 2023. The landlord said it would pass the details to the local housing manager to investigate. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this report was responded to by the housing manager. This was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which says non-urgent reports will be responded to within 5 working days.
  2. The resident made a further report on 2 May 2023. The case notes say that the landlord acknowledged the report and requested further details. It is at this point that the landlord should have carried out a risk assessment of the case. Government guidance on “putting victims first” helps agencies identify and support high risk victims by providing tools to deal with antisocial individuals. In accordance with this guidance, it is best practice to complete a risk assessment to assess a resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm at the earliest opportunity following a report of ASB. However, a risk assessment was not carried out until 3 August 2023. This was 64 working days later and not appropriate given the resident had said she was concerned for her health. Furthermore, carrying out the risk assessment sooner would have allowed the landlord to consider what support the resident required at an early stage.
  3. During the contact of 2 May 2023, the resident advised that the noise was occurring between 11pm and 4am. She noted that it was Ramadan and “hoped” that this was the reason for the late night noise. The case was closed at the resident’s request. It was appropriate for the landlord to accommodate her preference for closing the case.
  4. The resident made a further late night noise report on 5 June 2023. The landlord responded the same day by leaving a telephone message. This was prompt and appropriate, as its policy timescale allows for a 5 working day response to non-urgent issues.
  5. On 6 June 2023, the landlord emailed the leaseholder on the “available email address” and sent a warning letter to the neighbour in relation to the noise reports. The case notes say no response was received and no telephone number was recorded for the leaseholder. These actions taken by the landlord were appropriate and the first step in an investigation.
  6. The resident made further late night noise reports on 15 June, 16 June, and 5 July 2023. An action plan was produced on 5 July 2023. While it was appropriate for the landlord to produce an action plan, it was not appropriate that it took the landlord 22 days to do this. This should have been considered or implemented in the early stages of the resident’s reports.
  7. The action plan of 5 July 2023 included a task for the landlord to contact its leaseholder team to obtain further contact details for the leaseholder. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that the landlord took 22 working days to make contact. This was unreasonable, especially as the landlord was aware that it had not received a response from its previous correspondence to the leaseholder of 6 June 2023.
  8. It also tasked the resident with completing a diary for 7-10 days. The resident returned the diary to the landlord on 25 August 2023, however there is no evidence to show that the diary was reviewed or considered. This was not appropriate and a missed opportunity to examine the situation and manage the resident’s expectations as to what action the landlord could take. The landlord’s ASB handbook says it needs “substantial evidence” before it can take legal action and relies on residents to “gather as much information as possible.”
  9. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 29 July 2023, saying the late night noise had made it “impossible” to sleep for the previous 4 months. On 4 August 2023, the landlord sent another warning letter to the neighbour and reviewed its action plan. While it is good practice to regularly review an action plan, there were no notes as to what the review entailed and whether there were any updates to the action plan. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  10. On 8 August, 2 November, and 4 December 2023 the resident provided the landlord with noise recordings. However, the landlord did not advise the resident that it was unable to review the recordings until 25 January 2024, at which point it advised her to use the noise app. It was not appropriate that the landlord took 5 months to advise the resident it could not access the recordings she had been sending. This was evidently frustrating for the resident and did not demonstrate that the landlord was taking the complaint seriously.
  11. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 August 2023.It outlined the action it had taken and awarded the resident £50 for her time and trouble. The offer of compensation was a positive step in an attempt to put things right.
  12. The landlord carried out case reviews on 16 August and 7 September 2023. In the latter case review, it said it would contact the managing agent who let the neighbour’s property. Nevertheless, the evidence shows that this was not done until 6 November 2023, which was 42 working days later. This was not appropriate as the delay impacted the resident and the progression of her case.
  13. The resident chased the landlord for an update to her case on 14 November and 18 December 2023. She then requested to raise a stage 2 complaint on 3 January 2024. The landlord responded on 21 February 2024. It acknowledged that there had been gaps in its contact with the resident between October 2023 and January 2024. In total it offered the resident £150 for not providing her with fortnightly updates and for the inconvenience caused to her in pursuing the complaint. It was resolution focused to increase the offer of compensation, and a positive step by the landlord in acknowledging its failures in relation to the resident’s ASB case. However, the amount does not reflect the impact the situation had on the resident. She had explained several times that she was unable to sleep as the noise was “every single night until 4am” and had resorted to sleeping in her lounge.
  14. In summary, the landlord took some appropriate steps when investigating the resident’s noise complaint. However, there were also some significant failures. It delayed for 64 working days in carrying out a risk assessment, despite being aware that the resident had said the situation was affecting her health. It also failed to promptly prepare an action plan, and failed to evidence it reviewed the diary completed by the resident. Furthermore, it took 119 working days to advise her it could not access the recordings she had sent. It is clear from the evidence that the resident was trying to assist the landlord in obtaining the necessary evidence it needed to progress her case, but the landlord has not evidenced that it promptly considered the evidence she provided. This unreasonably prolonged the situation and denied the resident a resolution one way or another. It took 22 working days to contact its leasehold team and 42 working days to contact the managing agent.
  15. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident over a 9-month period (May 2023 to February 2024), £350 compensation has been awarded. This is in line with the landlord’s maximum award as outlined in its compensation policy and guidance, where there has been a high level of service failure and a long-term impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy allows 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response to be issued, and 20 working days for a stage 2 response.
  2. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 29 July 2023. The landlord responded on 22 August 2023. This was 21 working days later and significantly outside of its policy timescale, which was not appropriate. In addition, there was no evidence provided to show that the landlord informed the resident of the delay which was not appropriate.
  3. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 3 January 2024. While it is acknowledged that the landlord continued to liaise with the resident, it failed to provide a formal response until 21 February 2024. This was 35 working days later and again significantly outside of its policy timescale. The landlord acknowledged its failings in providing a delayed response at stage 1 and 2 and awarded the resident £50 in compensation. This was resolution focused and a positive step to put things right, however the amount is not considered sufficient to reflect the impact the delay had on the resident. Both complaint responses were delayed which was frustrating for the resident and caused her distress and inconvenience when pursuing the matter.
  4. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and £200 has been awarded to the resident. This is made up of £100 for each delayed response. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where there has been a “longer period of delay.”

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise from a neighbour.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £550, made up of:
      1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB.
      2. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its ASB policy and procedure, in order to ensure that the above failings do not happen again. In particular, it should ensure that a risk assessment and action plan is in place at the earliest opportunity and any appropriate support for residents is considered.
    4. Provide the resident and this service with an update regarding its proposed action in relation to the ASB and noise. Should it decide no action is necessary, provide details as to what considerations it made in coming to the decision.
    5. If appropriate, give consideration to what support is available to the resident.
    6. Arrange for all frontline staff involved in complaint handing to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords if this has not been done recently.